(Note to presenter: We have found it works best to take all questions - PDF document

(Note to presenter: We have found it works best to take all questions at the conclusion of the presentation) 1

In this presentation, there will a lot of discussion explaining the numbers, but program implementation is the primary focus in any evaluation the CIWMB does to determine if a jurisdiction is meeting the mandates. 2

• Each jurisdiction at some point in time had to conduct an expensive and time consuming base year study to quantify their diversion activities. • For most jurisdictions, calculating the diversion rate required using an adjustment method and the base year data.

•Under the old system calculating diversion rates was a time ‐ consuming and lengthy process and rates could not be finalized for several years. Diversion rates were also based on estimates of generation that often were inaccurate. •The CIWMB held regional workshops in 2004 and 2005. As a result of the feedback from those workshops, concepts were presented to the California Integrated Waste Management Board in November 2005 and they formed the basis for SB 1016 (Wiggins). •During the ensuing two years, Senator Wiggins held many stakeholder workshops to solicit feedback on the language for the bill. •This bill was an Administration sponsored supported by the Governor who signed the bill on Sept 28, 2008.

• The Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act maintains the 50% diversion requirement, but changes to a disposal based measurement system – expressed as the 50% Equivalent Per Capita Disposal Target. This builds upon AB 939 by implementing a simplified and more timely indicator of jurisdiction performance that focuses on reported disposal at Board ‐ permitted disposal facilities. • The new system allows jurisdictions to see their progress in a timely manner. Each jurisdiction will have its disposal indicator within 6 ‐ 9 months instead of 18 ‐ 24 months. This will allow jurisdictions to address program performance earlier. • The 10% transformation credit allowed is still allowed. • Extra biomass credit was eliminated.

• The EAR will still be the mechanism by which jurisdictions report on program implementation. • The EAR (electronic annual report) calculator will handle the math. • For most jurisdictions the review by the Board has been streamlined. • More clearly defines that the numbers are only one factor in determining compliance.

• Moves from emphasis on counting to focusing on programs • Disposal data is much more readily available—jurisdictions will have the numeric indicator in about 6 months. • For jurisdictions that need to calculate what the diversion rate would have been, the Board will provide links to the adjustment factor data and blank calculator. However, it will still be 18 ‐ 24 months to get the data. • The disposal based measurement system accounts for growth, as it is based upon per capita, using population or employment. This is covered in more detail later in the presentation. • SB 1016 will save jurisdictions from bean counting, which will free up more resources for actual recycling and other diversion programs. • Base year/generation studies are no longer be required (or, as of now, allowed) • Disposal modifications are still allowed

• The CIWMB will not determine compliance status solely on the basis of the disposal target, but rather will use it as one factor in evaluating jurisdiction compliance. • The CIWMB has had a number of questions about how this changes the review and asking if new regulations be put in place. There is no change to how the CIWMB reviews program implementation and determines if a compliance order is needed. No regulations will be developed. • Additionally, the good faith effort review remains virtually unchanged. • With the emphasis on program implementation, there will be an increased emphasis for Board staff to be out helping jurisdictions with programs, and market development to reduce material going into landfills.

• The 50% equivalent per capita disposal target is the amount of disposal a jurisdiction would have had during the base period if it had been exactly at a 50% diversion rate. It is calculated using the average of 2003 ‐ 2006 per capita generation for each jurisdiction (in pounds). It then divides this generation average in half to determine the 50% equivalent per capita disposal target. • The target is an indicator for comparison with that jurisdiction’s annual per capita per day disposal rate beginning with the 2007 program year (the annual per capita disposal rate is discussed starting on slide 11) • The CIWMB acknowledges that establishing the target, builds off of generation, which is an estimate. However, this is the only time generation will be used. • Targets are specific to each jurisdiction and are not comparable to those of other jurisdictions. 9

10

• Disposal for 2007 and subsequent years will be measured in terms of an annual per capita disposal rate • Expressed in pounds per person per day. This is a change from measuring in tons as has been done in the past. • The annual per capita disposal rate is based on disposal numbers from the Disposal Reporting System and population figures from the Dept. of Finance . • Generation estimates are no longer used for yearly reporting purposes. 11

12

• Each year, the 50% equivalent per capita disposal target will be compared to the annual per capita disposal rate. • If the CIWMB determines that a jurisdiction’s annual per capita disposal exceeds the 50% equivalent per capita disposal target, the CIWMB will more closely examine the jurisdiction’s program implementation efforts. • This examination may indicate that a jurisdiction has made a good faith effort to implement their programs or that the jurisdiction has not made a good faith effort and should be considered for a compliance order to implement additional programs. • The CIWMB will evaluate disposal trends over time. • Disposal numbers are not determinative of compliance. Program implementation is KEY. • However, whether a jurisdiction is disposing more or less than their 50% equivalent per capita disposal target determines the CIWMB compliance review cycle. (This is discussed further on slide 15) 13

• For each jurisdiction, the CIWMB will calculate the jurisdiction’s unique target and annual per capita disposal based on the primary indicator of jurisdiction population. • The CIWMB will also calculate a secondary indicator for each jurisdiction based on jurisdiction industry employment. • The CIWMB may consider additional indicators as justified on a case by case basis. • Remember, SB 1016 does not change the AB 939 50% requirement—it just measures it differently. Compliance is the same under the new system as it was under the old system, except that the emphasis on program implementation is more explicit now. To evaluate compliance, the Board will look at a jurisdiction’s per ‐ capita disposal rate as an indicator of how well its programs are doing. However, this number does not determine compliance. Compliance is based on Board evaluation that a jurisdiction is continuing to implement the programs it chose and is making progress in meeting its target. 14

• For Jurisdictions that were deemed to have met 50% or their rural reduced goal and had good programs at the 05 ‐ 06 Board review, their next review would commence in 2012 after receipt of the 2011 annual report. • Note: The review would be based on 2007, 08, 09, 10 and 11 report years (Under this scenario, there would typically be 4 years included in the review, but due to the transition from the old measurement system to the new system, 2007 is also included for the review commencing in 2012.) • For Js that were deemed good faith effort in the 05 ‐ 06 BR their next review by the Board would commence in 2010 after receipt of the 2009 annual report. • Note: The review would be based on 2007 ‐ 2009. (Under this scenario, there would typically be 2 years included in the review, but due to the transition from the old measurement system to the new system, 2007 is also included for the review commencing in 2010.) • Jurisdictions that have compliance orders will maintain their previously established reporting cycle and review cycle. • The law allows movement between the 2 and 4 year cycle. • For example, if a jurisdiction was found to have reduced their disposal and is disposing less than their 50% equivalent per capita disposal target, it could move into the 4 year cycle and vice versa.